What's the secret feature?

[Franklin]

Really I don't think anyone knows what's ahead of us for the game except the devs.

This has been a complaint for a while, actually.

[Alshain]

This has been a complaint for a while, actually.

Don't expect that to change. From a developer standpoint it's better to say nothing than to make promises that you may not be able to keep. I've seen it a dozen times, a developer says "Oh yeah we want to add [insert feature here], it's gonna happen." and then when it doesn't happen the whole game takes a nose dive and becomes medicore to complete failure.

[Franklin]

For sure. Making no promises gives far more wiggle room than outlining a concrete 5-year-plan, but providing no plan and coming back at concerns about that with "it's an adventure" makes it so if a section of the player-base doesn't like [or understand] the current build, future builds worry them more, which is acidic from a marketing perspective.

I mean there's no shame in providing bullets on what they want to see accomplished in scope then down the road saying, "We can't do this, we tried, here's why, we're sorry." I'm sure most would prefer that than having to constantly ask if feature X will still be included only to get, "Maybe, no promises."

[Alshain]

I mean there's no shame in providing bullets on what they want to see accomplished in scope then down the road saying, "We can't do this, we tried, here's why, we're sorry." I'm sure most would prefer that than having to constantly ask if feature X will still be included only to get, "Maybe, no promises."

You know that, and I know that, but the moment it happens you will end up with a lot of irate users. This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about. If you tell them you "might" add a feature that automatically becomes a promise in the minds of the collective user base for some strange reason. It's just asking for trouble.

[Higgs]

Destructible buildings? Wonder what the game play mechanic effect will be? Permanent destruction or temporary destruction? Rebuild costs or not? As cool as this sounds it makes me wonder the prior. Should be fun tho

[Linear]

If the aerodynamics are genuinely being put on the back-burner to work on stuff like upgradeable ksp/whatnot, i'll feel pretty sickened. I bought this game to be a pretty realistic vision of piloting/building a space agency, with a development team eager to impress and make the game awesome; instead we've got half-assed features and confusing math.

Harvester had the discussion with others about whether the game should feature proper orbital mechanics, that should have gave us a hint to his game vision. If that is his vision, i/we cannot complain, but i don't really think we were sold that kind of idea.

[regex]

If the aerodynamics are genuinely being put on the back-burner to work on stuff like upgradeable ksp/whatnot, i'll feel pretty sickened. I bought this game to be a pretty realistic vision of piloting/building a space agency, with a development team eager to impress and make the game awesome; instead we've got half-assed features and confusing math.

Harvester had the discussion with others about whether the game should feature proper orbital mechanics, that should have gave us a hint to his game vision. If that is his vision, i/we cannot complain, but i don't really think we were sold that kind of idea.

This is true. The advertising at the time I bought this said it would have a "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should.", and the advertising I looked at then is the same that I see now. But those of us who were sold on the idea of a fairly solid simulator where "everything will fly (and crash) as it should" need to remember that "KSP is a game", amirite? Maybe the advertising needs to change, something like "Not likely to be implemented somewhat-Physics-based Flight game ensures everything might fly (and crash) as it should but probably won't because apparently control surface infini-glide mechanics are thought of as "cool" by the community relations team"...

Edited September 29, 2014 by regex

[Linear]

This is true. The advertising at the time I bought this said it would have a "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should.", and the advertising I looked at then is the same that I see now. But those of use who were sold on the idea of a fairly solid simulator where "everything will fly (and crash) as it should" need to remember that "KSP is a game", amirite? Maybe the advertising needs to change, something like "Not likely to be implemented somewhat-Physics-based Flight game ensures everything might fly (and crash) as it should but probably won't because apparently control surface infini-glide mechanics are thought of as "cool" by the community relations team"...

Never thought i'd be having these kinds of discussions. The early days were so promising, too promising. IVA??? EVA??? PLANETS?? PLANES???

"Oh honey, look, i gained 3 science for sending a guy to Jool"

"..again? Ugh, did you use something interesting to get there?"

"a hype-kraken-x-infini-sailor"

"Sounds like accurate science to me!"

[Fizban]

That day is bound to happen.

Rowsdower corrected what came out a bit wrong by saying

"Aero, along with many of the popular suggestions made in those threads *will* get a more thorough look post-scope complete but it *may or may not* make it in, as we are oft to not guarantee that sort of thing as a policy."

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94061-The-0-25-Waiting-Room-now-boarding-passengers-heading-to-Hypetown?p=1438914#post1438914

[skyace65]

Maybe they're simply not planning onto adding those features? Really I don't think anyone knows what's ahead of us for the game except the devs.

I don't think the devs know where they are going either really. They probably just go update to update, save a large feature like what is coming in .26 and multiplayer.

[Penguinhero]

OMG THIS IS TURNING INTO THE GTA V FORUMS

Listen if your gonna complain and rant on a FREE update I honestly don't see why your complaining about it if its FREE. Have you ever complained to someone giving out free samples, NO, So why you complaining about this. Sure maybe its not FAR or TAC but just put the mod in your game and deal with it for now Your starting to sound like the whole no heists in gta v Except Heist=Iva's, Aerodynamics, Cities, Planets, etc. sure its more than just one thing but its AN INDIE GAME Give squad some credit here theres NO OTHER GAME LIKE KSP so STOP COMPLAINING AND PLAY THE ONLY GAME OF ITS TYPE AND ENJOY THE UPDATES

THIS may be HARD to read BUT DEAL WITH IT Like the FREE updates

Edited September 30, 2014 by Specialist290
Removing formatting that made post difficult to read.

[Stargate525]

OMG THIS IS TURNING INTO THE GTA V FORUMS

Listen if your gonna complain and rant on a FREE update I honestly don't see why your complaining about it if its FREE. Have you ever complained to someone giving out free samples, NO, So why you complaining about this. Sure maybe its not FAR or TAC but just put the mod in your game and deal with it for now Your starting to sound like the whole no heists in gta v Except Heist=Iva's, Aerodynamics, Cities, Planets, etc. sure its more than just one thing but its AN INDIE GAME Give squad some credit here theres NO OTHER GAME LIKE KSP so STOP COMPLAINING AND PLAY THE ONLY GAME OF ITS TYPE AND ENJOY THE UPDATES

THIS may be HARD to read BUT DEAL WITH IT Like the FREE updates

Not free. Paid for. I bought every update up to 1.0, thanks.

[Higgs]

Penguinhero heres the thing, those of us who

joined after this game stopped being free to play are the ones who actually are entitled to complain as vocally if not more so than those who came before that time. As to say something like life-support for example are fine for those who wish to

add such complexity but is overkill for those who do not want it. Squad cannot please us all so they aim at the middle of the road. Just enjoy the ride

[Sky_walker]

Rowsdower corrected what came out a bit wrong by saying

"Aero, along with many of the popular suggestions made in those threads *will* get a more thorough look post-scope complete but it *may or may not* make it in, as we are oft to not guarantee that sort of thing as a policy."

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94061-The-0-25-Waiting-Room-now-boarding-passengers-heading-to-Hypetown?p=1438914#post1438914

That only makes it worse, doesn't it?

[Linear]

OMG THIS IS TURNING INTO THE GTA V FORUMS

Listen if your gonna complain and rant on a FREE update I honestly don't see why your complaining about it if its FREE. Have you ever complained to someone giving out free samples, NO, So why you complaining about this. Sure maybe its not FAR or TAC but just put the mod in your game and deal with it for now Your starting to sound like the whole no heists in gta v Except Heist=Iva's, Aerodynamics, Cities, Planets, etc. sure its more than just one thing but its AN INDIE GAME Give squad some credit here theres NO OTHER GAME LIKE KSP so STOP COMPLAINING AND PLAY THE ONLY GAME OF ITS TYPE AND ENJOY THE UPDATES

THIS may be HARD to read BUT DEAL WITH IT Like the FREE updates

Free updates? What planet are you living on?

The game was advertised when i bought it as receiving 'many updates for a long time to come'. There was no way we'd have paid that much for a game in it's current state - it wasn't much better than a quick uni project.

We were promised updates, and we were promised other things (quoted by regex etc).

[Sean Mirrsen]

That only makes it worse, doesn't it?

No, no it doesn't. Squad is under no obligation to implement every feature the playerbase wants, especially since not all of the playerbase wants it. They will look into the suggestions once they've made the game work like they want it to, but they'll pass on anything that doesn't fit into their view of how the game should play. It's perfectly reasonable. And more importantly, they should not promise anything with regard to those features at this time, because the game changes as it's being developed, and some things may end up being impossible for one reason or another. Saying "it will be looked at" is the most logical thing to do.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Sean Mirrsen

[Linear]

No, no it doesn't. Squad is under no obligation to implement every feature the playerbase wants, especially since not all of the playerbase wants it. They will look into the suggestions once they've made the game work like they want it to, but they'll pass on anything that doesn't fit into their view of how the game should play. It's perfectly reasonable. And more importantly, they should not promise anything with regard to those features at this time, because the game changes as it's being developed, and some things may end up being impossible for one reason or another. Saying "it will be looked at" is the most logical thing to do.

If we bring it back to the context of Aerodynamics. We were promised proper aerodynamics, i paid for it, where is it? Oh, i wont be getting it until after full release?

[Sean Mirrsen]

I believe he said "scope-complete", not "full release". And if you actually read what he pointed to, "scope-complete" is somewhere within the next few updates.

[regex]

If we bring it back to the context of Aerodynamics. We were promised proper aerodynamics, i paid for it, where is it? Oh, i wont be getting it until after full release?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily claim we were "promised" anything, but the advertising has led me to believe that the product I paid in advance for would eventually have me playing a full-blown physics based flight sim where everything flies and crashes as it should (it doesn't; a brick wall flies in KSP stock). Meanwhile, everyone, including the community manager, claims this is a "game, not a sim". My point really being that the advertising should probably be changed because "maybe we'll look into it" isn't how the game is described.

[Dodgey]

OMG THIS IS TURNING INTO THE GTA V FORUMS

Listen if your gonna complain and rant on a FREE update I honestly don't see why your complaining about it if its FREE. Have you ever complained to someone giving out free samples, NO, So why you complaining about this. Sure maybe its not FAR or TAC but just put the mod in your game and deal with it for now Your starting to sound like the whole no heists in gta v Except Heist=Iva's, Aerodynamics, Cities, Planets, etc. sure its more than just one thing but its AN INDIE GAME Give squad some credit here theres NO OTHER GAME LIKE KSP so STOP COMPLAINING AND PLAY THE ONLY GAME OF ITS TYPE AND ENJOY THE UPDATES

THIS may be HARD to read BUT DEAL WITH IT Like the FREE updates

Been a while since I've had to post this. Though usually it's the opposite side of the spectrum complaining. I'm not really sure as to what your angle is but perhaps this might clear up some confusion on both sides of the spectrum.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily claim we were "promised" anything, but the advertising has led me to believe that the product I paid in advance for would eventually have me playing a full-blown physics based flight sim where everything flies and crashes as it should (it doesn't; a brick wall flies in KSP stock). Meanwhile, everyone, including the community manager, claims this is a "game, not a sim". My point really being that the advertising should probably be changed because "maybe we'll look into it" isn't how the game is described.

I don't think the words "flight sim" were ever used, actually. It was just "everything flies (and crashes) as it should". The game is far from a sim, and making it a sim is counterproductive to the game's own image, which is "LEGO with rockets". Most you'll get is an approximation of realism, far removed from any flight sim, and nowhere near the level of aerodynamic authenticity that you seem to be hoping for. The best-case scenario I see for aerodynamics is the combined effects of "Stock Drag Fix", with some of Ferram's aerodynamic shielding code thrown in. Anything more complex would have to be optional, and since I very much doubt a thing such as this would be possible to make optional the same way exploding buildings can be, this "optional-ness" would have to manifest in the form of it being a mod. Such as FAR.

Also it's not "maybe we'll look into it", but rather "maybe, we'll look into it". I think Squad has been burned enough on the resources system to know not to make commitments in regards to future features.

[Pigbear]

to those who are like "oh no they didn't incorporate [insert difficulty mod only a vocal minority wants here] in ksp, squad sucks" Well, good news for you! Difficulty settings will be coming in this update so SQUAD will probably incorporate things like that in the game but being defaultly off needing to be turned on by the menu.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think the words "flight sim" were ever used, actually. It was just "everything flies (and crashes) as it should".

"Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should."

Seriously, the words "Flight Simulation" are right in the line you're selectively quoting. The whole "it's a game, not a simulator" argument is getting old and tired. It is both, it is advertised and sold as a flight simulator (among other things). About being a realistic sim hurting its image, realistic physics is what sets KSP apart from all the "planes in space" space "simulators". Read any review or article about KSP, and you'll see that they don't complain about the realistic physics, they praise it as one of its best features.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Grammarz

[bonyetty]

On the first glance this feature looks unneccessary, but fun to a certain level. You use to drop additional tanks during lifting payload? Take care where you hit the space bar, or your VAB might be gone, on your return....

But take a second view on that. What does it mean? It means bilateral reaction between vessel and environment. Not only your vessel can be damaged, but the environment too.

And that opens up a lot of developement opportunities. Impact craters. Landing marks. Rover trails. Foot steps. Dust clouds from landing enginges. The code behind "destrucible KSC" is in fact a feature that might open the way to a new level of game feeling.

I am looking forward, what SQUAD will end up with here.

Thanks for the heads up Kialar

This would be SO cool. I have no idea about how game codeing works, but if this is some of how the implications of exploding buildings will affect the immersive feel of the game, great. One of the most important and inspirational photos of space exploration is of Neil Armstrong's foot print on the moon. If we can leave our foot prints, crators wheel tracks all over the Kerbal universe. Wow! And to have rockets AND to have buildings and potentially terrain EXPLODE (pritty much all physical things in game) from the consequences of in game actions. Wow wow wow. You don't get much more Kerbal than that IMHO.

Thanks again SQUAD. Looking forward to what ever Harvister's plans for the game are. From what I have played and see already. Wow wow wow wow wow!

Edited September 30, 2014 by bonyetty

[Sean Mirrsen]

"Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should."

Seriously, the words "Flight Simulation" are right in the line you're selectively quoting. The whole "it's a game, not a simulator" argument is getting old and tired. It is both, it is advertised and sold as a flight simulator (among other things). About being a realistic sim hurting its image, realistic physics is what sets KSP apart from all the "planes in space" space "simulators". Read any review or article about KSP, and you'll see that they don't complain about the realistic physics, they praise it as one of its best features.

I'm not selectively quoting, it's my memory being selective.

I could probably point out that "physics-based flight simulation" is open to interpretation (i.e. "wings generate lift when moved through the air" covers that, and varied lift and drag based on air humidity is also a factor that exists, yet is hardly often cited as a required feature in "flight sims"), but that would be pointless in this discussion.

Also, yes, realistic physics is what sets KSP apart. Realistic, y'know, Newtonian physics. I will be fairly surprised if what stock KSP ends up having for an atmospheric model is in any way comparable to FAR in complexity, it's beyond its scope. It sets out to make spaceship design approachable and fun, combining it with realistic physics to make flying them challenging and educational. FAR-level realistic aerodynamics will take the "approachable and fun" out of the equation, moving the latter two qualifiers in their place, and adding "frustrating" on top of that due to repeatedly failing to fly simple things that would otherwise be at worst unstable or hard to control.

NEAR is, heh, nearer to the mark, but I honestly expect to see nothing more than a fix to stock drag parameters (i.e. removing mass from the equation), plus some basic airflow shielding to allow for nosecones' and fairings' usefulness, prevent hidden intakes and control surfaces, and make low atmosphere feel a little less like soup while retaining most of stock ascent difficulty.